Of a Dream

Cardinal Sarah, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, says Mass in the London Oratory for the Sacra Liturgia conference, July 6, 2016. Credit: Lawrence OP via Flickr (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0).

The contemporary world, for a variety of reasons, is very much in a tumult, with questions of race and racism in the forefront of the discussion and protests.  It is in this context that I propose to offer a few thoughts.

In the first place, I must note that my Catholic Faith is the root and source of my view of the world; I seek to conform my intellect and will to the truth and goodness of Christ, and not the spirit of the age or the fads of society. I don't want to undermine or contradict the Truth. Ever.  Making distinctions and being precise is critical; especially in moral and theological matters.

In considering any question of race, then, the starting place for me is the call of Our Lord, Jesus Christ, to make disciples of all nations.  Racism is a sin.  If you find yourself hating individuals of a particular race because of their race, or seek to make another ashamed of their own race, you have drifted from the charge of Christ to love one another and baptize all nations. As St. Paul says: in Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek. (Gal 3:28)

Every human person has equal dignity, being made in the image and likeness of God. Our race is not our identity; neither is our nationality -- that comes from our Baptism in Jesus Christ.

I appreciate the particular wisdom and truth in the famous line of the Atlanta, Georgia native, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr:  "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by their character."

Two points immediately present themselves in response to that statement.

In the first place, I think the statement is so moving and memorable because there is a solid grounding in truth that underlies this "dream."  We should, indeed, be concerned with the character of a man, rather than on his particular race.  All men ought to be equal under law, insofar as reason allows and permits.  Law is, after all, "an ordinance of reason for the common good, made by him who has care of the community, and promulgated."  It is incumbent on everyone, regardless of their own race, to treat others with charity, respect, and at the very least, in justice.  Certainly, public officials have a grave obligation in this regard.  In addition, we should by all means extend charity to the poor and the disadvantaged -- of any and every race!

The second thought regards the interpretation of this statement and the larger, and more difficult question, of race relations, especially in the United States.  To a great many people, equal rights seems to mean not a matter of equality under law, or in treating folks justly, but of something rather different.  Many seem to assume that equality should mean either equal societal status in terms or wealth or power on one hand, or reparation for past wrongs, on the other.  History is filled with accounts of injustice, inequality, and tragedy.  That of the United States is certainly no exception; and a single ethnic group can by no means claim a monopoly on being the object of such injustice.  An agenda of revenge, of coercive redistribution of wealth, of legal preferences -- these hardly contribute positively to society or truly right the wrongs of the past, however.

At the same time, while the law and justice demands that we treat all equally, nature and experience tells us that folks do have cultural and ethnic differences.  As well it should be.  Equality can not and should not mean that there is no recognition of such differences in people.  Different peoples have different customs, music, foods, histories, heroes, and languages.  We should not deny to a race or ethnic group its strengths or unique characteristics.  At the same time, it makes little sense to ignore the prevailing faults or strengths of a people, especially if you are charged with the common good.  Denying someone their legal rights based on race alone is an injustice.  Ignoring statistics and failing to remain vigilant of trends within ethnic groups seems naïve.

Also, for reference, here is a link to the full text of the speech: "I Have A Dream," 28 August 1963.

Finally, in addressing real questions of racism and injustice, I close with these reflections from C. S. Lewis:

"Beware lest you are making use of the idea of corporate guilt to distract your attention from those humdrum, old-fashioned guilts of your own which have nothing to do with 'the system' and which can be dealt with without waiting for the millennium. For corporate guilt perhaps cannot be, and certainly is not, felt with the same force as personal guilt. For most of us, as we now are, this conception is a mere excuse for evading the real issue.
When we have really learned to know our individual corruption, then indeed we can go on to think of the corporate guilt and can hardly think of it too much. But we must learn to walk before we can run....
From considering how the cruelty of our ancestors looks to us, you may get some inkling how our softness, worldliness, and timidity would have looked to them, and hence how both must look to God.
...pity for the oppressed classes, when separated from the moral law as a whole, leads by a very natural process to the unremitting brutalities of a reign of terror."
-- Problem of Pain, pages 54, 58, & 59

In the end, we should dream of a "a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by their character."  We should treat individuals with justice, respect, and charity; we should acknowledge and appreciate the strengths and contributions of various races and ethnic groups and commit ourselves to working for equal justice under law and the end to the evil of racism.

That is this blogger's two cents, anyway!

Live well!

Why Civil War: Secession & the War of the Union

Why Civil War?

The causes and complexities of the secession crisis and War of Union of the 1860s are often a topic of discussion and dispute.  Unfortunately, nearly as often, these causes and complexities are distorted or exaggerated to justify one side or the other.  It is my hope to fairly and concisely lay out some of the key causes and motivations that turned the sectional dispute into a war, especially hoping to fill out an understanding of Southern motivations and rationale.

Usually the South is blamed for the advent of Civil War; really a War of Independence or a War of Union.  Secession and war are considered and treated as equivalent to one another.  Secession is war.  There is an important distinction, however, between the two, as history demonstrates.  Let us begin with secession.  Why did the South secede?

The Southern concerns were these: the Northern states pursued a set of economic policies (on tariffs, internal improvements, for instance) that undermined Southern economic interests.  The tariff issue was no small matter for the South, as Southern cotton exports made up more than half of American exports.  Further, Northern states had proven unwilling to recognize and enforce fugitive slave laws (as required by the Constitution), and they had railed against the South and the institution of slavery, seeking to restrict their ability to bring their "property" to the western territories; this even after the Dred Scott decision of 1857 that affirmed that as a Constitutional right.  Add to this the kind of affirming rhetoric that glorified John Brown at Harpers Ferry in 1859 and his militant anti-slavery techniques.  A host of issues divided the sections, and slavery, important in itself, became symbolic for them all.

The South may have lost control of the House of Representatives some years before, but had been able to rely on its standing in the Senate and the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court to broker compromises or defend its regional interests.  With the admission of several free states without new Southern states to balance, the South lost its equal status in the Senate.   On top of that, when the Republican Abraham Lincoln of Illinois was elected President, he was not even on the ballot in any of the states that would form the Confederacy except Virginia (in the Old Dominion, he received 1.1% of the vote; as an interesting side note, Lincoln carried California with 32.3% of the vote!).  That means that Lincoln did not receive a single popular vote, never mind electoral vote, in NC, SC, GA, FL, TN, AL, MS, LA, AR, and TX.

Presidential Election of 1860.

For the fire-eaters in places like South Carolina, they determined to get out while the getting was good. They lost Congress, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court would soon inevitably follow. They had no expectations that the federal government would ever protect their interests, especially when they had shown that they weren’t willing to uphold their Constitutional rights.  As far as they were concerned, the Union that was the United States, no longer protected their interests, and they understood that departure from this free Union was their legal right.  States like Virginia, when they ratified the Constitution, expressed their understanding that they had the right to withdraw if the new government acted to injure or oppress the people.  (Cf., Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Virginia) 

John B. Gordon, a Confederate general, and later Governor of Georgia and member of the U.S. Senate, expressed the Southern understanding thus: “The South maintained with the depth of religious conviction that the Union formed under the Constitution was a Union of consent and not of force; that the original States were not the creatures but the creators of the Union; that these States had gained their independence, their freedom, and their sovereignty from the mother country, and had not surrendered these on entering the Union; that by the express terms of the Constitution all rights and powers not delegated were reserved to the States; and the South challenged the North to find one trace of authority in that Constitution for invading and coercing a sovereign State.” (cf., General Gordon's Reminiscences)

Conventions were called, delegates elected, and the secession crisis was at hand.

Hence, the Deep South (The Cotton States: SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, LA, and TX) went ahead and seceded, from December 1860 to February 1861, before Lincoln even took office in March 1861.  These states (like MS) did express the protection of slavery as a reason for secession. (The MS ordinance can be viewed here: Mississippi Secession Ordinance)   The Vice-President of the new Confederacy, Alexander Stephens, himself a Unionist opposed to secession, but who remained loyal to Georgia, famously expressed this in his “Cornerstone Speech.” (Cf., Stephens: Cornerstone Speech)

For the upper South (The Tobacco States: VA, NC, TN, AR), secession only came after President Lincoln actually called up troops to invade the Cotton States after Fort Sumter. Virginia had actually voted against secession at the beginning of April (Cf., VIRGINIA CONVENTION VOTES AGAINST SECESSION), but reconsidered once Lincoln proposed to make it a war and invade the Deep South to compel them to remain.  For Virginia, the debate was about coercion.  Governor Letcher of Virginia responded to the call for troops to subdue the Deep South thus: "You have chosen to inaugurate civil war, and having done so, we will meet it in a spirit as determined as the Administration has exhibited towards the South." (Cf., New York Times: GOV. LETCHER REPLY TO SECRETARY CAMERON)

North Carolina, too, initially opposed secession, not even calling a convention.  The Tar Heel State changed her tune when President Lincoln called up troops:  “Congressman Zebulon Vance, a western Unionist, was gesturing to the heavens ‘for peace and the Union of our Fathers’ when someone handed him news of Lincoln’s call for troops. ‘When my hand came down,’ Vance recalled later, ‘it fell slowly and sadly by the side of a secessionist. I immediately, with altered voice and manner, called upon the assembled multitude to volunteer, not to fight against but for South Carolina.’”  (Cf., NY Times Opinionator: ‘The Death Knell of Slavery’):

This is an important point – the Southern states actually seceded at different points with different specific reasons and motivations.  All of them were content to separate from the United States without a war.  Confederate Vice-President Stephens in his “Cornerstone Speech” remarked in March 1861: “This revolution has been signally marked, up to this time, by the fact of its having been accomplished without the loss of a single drop of blood.”  Nevertheless, they were also clearly willing to defend their right to secede with force of arms.

Blue: Free Union States.

Yellow: Slave Union States (Border States)

Light Red: Upper South States (Tobacco States), which seceded after Lincoln's call for troops.

Dark Red: Deep South States (Cotton States), which seceded after Lincoln's election.

["US Secession map 1861" by Júlio Reis - The source code of this SVG is valid.This vector image was created with Inkscape, and then manually edited.A trace, retouch, and recolour of Image:Secession Map of the United States, 1861.png by User:Tomf688.. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons]

When the Deep South seceded, President James Buchanan of PA was in office, and would remain so until Lincoln’s inauguration in March 1861.  Buchanan viewed secession as being illegal, but also believed that a President had no legal power to make war on the states.  Hence, while he was President, there were attempts to retain federal property (several forts did remain under federal control, including Fort Sumter in SC, Fort Pickens in FL, and Fort Monroe in VA), but there was no war or invasion.  In his Fourth Annual Address in December 1860, President Buchanan observed: “The fact is that our Union rests upon public opinion, and can never be cemented by the blood of its citizens shed in civil war. If it can not live in the affections of the people, it must one day perish. Congress possesses many means of preserving it by conciliation, but the sword was not placed in their hand to preserve it by force.” (Cf., Fourth Annual Message to Congress on the State of the Union)

President Abraham Lincoln, too, considered secession illegal, but curiously, like Buchanan, also maintained a right of the people to Revolution: “This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.” First Inaugural Address, March 1861. (Cf., First Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln)

Ultimately, it was Abraham Lincoln that determined that secession was illegal, the Union must be saved, and it must be saved by the use of military force.  For Lincoln, this was to be a war to save the Union – and he said it was so in a letter to newspaper editor Horace Greeley of NY in August 1862: “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about Slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union, and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.” (cf., New York Times: Reply to Horace Greeley)

It is an interesting to ponder the question of using coercion to compel so many states to remain in a free union, even at the cost of over 600,000 lives and four years of war.

Without question, Abraham Lincoln was opposed to slavery, but he was also very much against racial equality, having said: "...I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races -- that I am not...in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, not of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people...there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality." -- Abraham Lincoln, 18 September 1858; Fourth Debate with Stephen Douglas.  Lincoln himself supported compensated emancipation and hoped to avoid racial issues in the U.S. by encouraging freedmen to emigrate. (Cf., Civil War Daily Gazette: LINCOLN ARGUES IN FAVOR OF COLONIZING THE FREED SLAVES)

Later on, as the war progressed, the decision was made to eradicate slavery.  The role of the freedmen in society, however, remained hotly debated.  Ending slavery and granting equal rights were two rather different things.  New York had overwhelmingly voted down a referendum to extend voting rights to blacks in 1860.  Indeed, at the time of the ratification of the 15^th Amendment after the war, only 7 of the Northern states had extended voting franchise to African Americans.

That said, it should be highlighted that the institution of slavery, as it existed in ante bellum America, was morally problematic and certainly an injustice.  Perhaps the greatest injustice was the failure of U.S. laws to recognize slave marriages or to legally prohibit the separation of families.  Even if we seek to understand Southern motivations, we certainly ought not try to whitewash or justify the evils of slavery as it was practiced in the United States.  Of course, a study of slavery, to be complete, would also probe the unseemly role of northern ports in the slave trade, and the motivation to protect slavery in the calls for independence from Great Britain in the American Revolution.   America has had a race problem, and a problem with racism, but it is not limited to the South.  Of course, racism is hardly a uniquely American problem!

In sum, secession and war were two different matters, and the reasons that various individuals and states involved themselves in either certainly varied.

A great deal more could be said about the prosecution of the war and the era of Reconstruction that followed, but that is a subject for another day.

In all of these issues, it is certainly important for the honest student of history to seek to understand the motivations of both sides, the complexities of the issues, and seek to learn what we can from the shortcomings of our forefathers and our Republic.

Live well!

Feast of St. Etheldreda

Today is the Feast of the Anglo-Saxon Saint, St. Etheldreda (+679AD).  She is also known as St. Audrey or, in another form, Audra!

She was a member of the royal family of East Anglia, the daughter of the king, became the queen of Northumbria, and, when widowed, founded a monastery in Ely, England.  When her body was moved in the 12th century, it was still incorrupt.

Here is a bit more information on this saint, little known outside England:
Catholic Saints Info: Saint Etheldreda

This is the account in the Old Catholic Encyclopedia:
Old Catholic Encyclopedia: St. Etheldreda

This link goes to the site of the Church of St. Etheldreda in London, England:
St. Etheldreda's Church, London

Live well!

Feast of St. Aloysius of Gonzaga

The Vocation of Saint Aloysius by Guercino


We might note that it is the feast of St. Aloysius Gonzaga, the young 16th century Jesuit.  Born in 1568 into the prominent noble Italian family of Gonzaga, he spurned the excesses of the court, and joined the Society of Jesus at the tender age of 16.  St. Aloysius died during an outbreak of the plague in Rome during the year 1591AD.

Today, he is buried in the marvelous Baroque Jesuit Church of Sant'Ignazio in Rome: Chiesa di Sant'Ignazio

For more on this great saint, you might note:
Old Catholic Encyclopedia: St. Aloysius Gonzaga

Catholic Saints Info: St. Aloysius Gonzaga

Live well!

Epidemic Response: A critique

I don’t often express my own opinion at any length on this forum, especially on “hot topics.” Typically, I doubt the fruitfulness of the exercise. That said, in this case, I think it is worth putting a couple thoughts out there on this question of the response to Wuhan Coronavirus.

I should start with the obligatory caveat that yes, I do think that the virus is more serious than your typical seasonal flu, and that, yes, of course, we should act responsibly and especially do our part to protect vulnerable folks.

My critique is this: during this pandemic, our public health officials and the press corps have badly handled their direction and communication of the situation. I think a scientist and public health official should be clear, honest, and sober. In such a case, the press need only give them a platform. I don’t think that has happened.

Let me explain my dissatisfaction.

Science is all about observation, gathering evidence, and testing theories to explain what you see. In a case like this, when you are facing a novel virus, it is common sense that there is a great deal you would not know: it's new. So, tell the public that. Be transparent on what we have proven and what we merely guess or surmise. Be equally honest about how you may have initially been wrong. If goals have to change, make it quite clear that the goal is changing and why new evidence necessitates the change. I'm not seeing that.

So far, I can recall being told:
-- There is no evidence of human-to-human transmission
-- There is no threat to the United States
-- The virus can be spread even by those who are asymptomatic
-- It can take two weeks to manifest symptoms
-- Some infected people never actually manifest symptoms
-- Wash your hands and don't touch your face
-- Don't wear a mask unless you are sick or a medical professional. Cloth masks are useless with a virus and give a false sense of security.
-- The virus can live 7 days on some surfaces, so wipe everything down
-- The is a national medical emergency that necessitates shuttering the nation
-- We need to flatten the curve to keep from overwhelming our medical facilities, even though this will prolong the epidemic
-- Wear a mask. This is primarily to protect others
-- The chance of transmission from inanimate surfaces is low
-- Most healthy people who become infected have no symptoms or have mild symptoms
-- The chance of asymptomatic transmission is less than that from one manifesting symptoms
Now we even have some public officials in certain places talking about continuing restrictions until there is a vaccine or “cure.”

Please note: I’ve got no problem with any of this progression, insofar as it is based on the new evidence and experience that we gained. Indeed, I am excited that we continue to learn more about this pathogen and will be better able to stop its spread and treat those who contract it.

I am troubled, though, at this tendency to “update” the recommendations and “facts” about the disease without an admission that earlier recommendations and theories about it were, in fact, erroneous. I am concerned, too, that the public is lectured to like fools and treated as an ignorant, selfish, and “anti-science” should there be any questioning of these recommendations or policies. If you want the public to cooperate, you’ve got to give clear goals, convincing reasons, and sensible recommendations. You need to be clear, honest, and sober. We have had shifting goals, appeals to authority, and mandates that often don’t make sense. That doesn’t work. The tone from too many officials and press outlets has been contradictory, politically charged, and alarmist.

For instance, the policy of trying to “flatten the curve” made good sense. So why have we abandoned it? What was wrong with that? You need to explain why that is no longer an appropriate strategy, not just introduce a new one and accuse those asking questions with not caring about how many people die.

I also want to note: life involves risks. The argument that it is worth it to remain “locked down as long as it takes” or utterly changing society on a permanent basis if it would even save a single life from the Coronavirus is, frankly, nonsense. Public policy should be about the promotion of the common good; the common good involves, not just what’s best for some, or even the majority, but what is just and tends to general human flourishing. To impose long-term quarantines that result in catastrophic economic and societal consequences demands that there be a yet more serious danger in not doing so. Right? Utterly overwhelmed medical facilities where folks can’t even get treatment for emergencies unrelated to the Wuhan Coronavirus; that’s worth avoiding, for sure. “Flatten the curve.” That makes sense. That’s not a threat right now in most places, though. Again, life involves risk. We can never totally avoid it; we should responsibly manage it. Striking that balance takes prudence and sobriety.

Finally, I think the adversarial attitude of the press towards the President and my own governor here in Georgia is counterproductive. Of course, the comments of President Trump have been inconsistent, confusing, and too often off-the-cuff. Anyone who knows Donald Trump knows that while he is to be taken seriously, his off-the-cuff comments should not be taken so seriously. The press, however, doesn't take him seriously, but takes every word he says way too seriously, and ultimately misses the point. I’m not defending the President’s delivery or his tendency to speak off-the-cuff or on Twitter. I am saying that, by now, the press should know how he works and stop giving so much attention and time to these statements. It's a distraction that makes it look like their priority is really just to discredit the president. I know they can do this: they seem to know how to take particular comments of Joe Biden with a grain of salt!

I should say, in closing, that I think my own governor here in Georgia has done a comparatively good job and has been at the receiving end of a great deal of dishonest and ill-informed ridicule.

In the end, I write all of these things hoping and praying for the best and acknowledging my own ignorance of much of the complexities of public policy and public health. On the other hand, if policy makers and health experts want the support of someone like me, they might note that what they are doing now isn’t working too well. I do fear they may have cried wolf a few times too many in this crisis, and I am concerned that folks are just going to stop listening. I don’t think that would be a good thing, in the end.

Let us pray for one another.

Live well!

Confraternity of St. Peter

Coat of Arms of the Confraternity of St. Peter

Today, 27 February, marks the anniversary of this bloggers enrollment in the Confraternity of St. Peter.

A confraternity is, of course, a sort of organization of those united in their prayer for a particular intention and cause.  In this case, "The Confraternity of St. Peter is a sodality of members who wish to unite themselves to the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter and aid in the work of our fraternity, primarily by their prayers...Members of the Confraternity of St. Peter (CSP) pray a decade of the Rosary and the Confraternity Prayer each day for the intentions of the CSP."

The Confraternity Prayer is as follows:

"V. Remember, O Lord, Thy congregation.

R. Which Thou hast possessed from the beginning.

Let us pray.

O Lord Jesus, born to give testimony to the Truth, Thou who lovest unto the end those whom Thou hast chosen, kindly hear our prayers for our pastors.

Thou who knowest all things, knowest that they love Thee and can do all things in Thee who strengthenest them.

Sanctify them in Truth. Pour into them, we beseech Thee, the Spirit whom Thou didst give to Thy apostles, who would make them, in all things, like unto Thee.

Receive the homage of love which they offer up to Thee, who hast graciously received the threefold confession of Peter.

And so that a pure oblation may everywhere be offered without ceasing unto the Most Holy Trinity, graciously enrich their number and keep them in Thy love, who art one with the Father and the Holy Ghost, to whom be glory and honour forever.

Amen."

The website of the Confraternity can be found here: Confraternity of St. Peter

Picture credit: [By Required attribution text: by the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, available from http://fssp.org., Attribution, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=5289044]

The Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP) is an Society of Apostolic Life of Pontifical Right established in 1988 at the direction of Pope St. John Paul II for the specific purpose of preserving the traditional liturgy of the Latin Rite.  This Priestly Fraternity was specifically founded to allow these venerable liturgies to remain alive in a community in full communion with, and with a deep attachment to, the Chair of St. Peter.  Hence they celebrate the Mass and sacraments according to the Roman Missal of 1962; the form of the Mass authorized for use by any priests by the Apostolic Letter Motu Proprio of Pope Benedict XVI, Summorum Pontificum.  Here is the website of the community: Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP)

The FSSP celebrates Mass in 124 dioceses worldwide, and in their North American District, 96 priests administer parishes in 39 dioceses in the USA and 7 in Canada.  This includes my own Archdiocese of Atlanta.  Here is the website of that North American District: FSSP North American District

I am particularly blessed to belong to the parish of St. Francis de Sales, which they administer in Mableton, Georgia!

Live well!

Bissextile Day & Leap Years

Pope Gregory XIII (1572-1585) who introduced the Gregorian Calendar

Today is Bissextile Day!  What is that?

Have you ever wondered why we have leap years, and why, on the traditional Catholic calendar, the feasts of late February shift a day in leap years?

Read on.

Of course, today we use the Gregorian calendar, promulgated by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582.  It replaced the earlier Julian calendar that dated to the Roman era, but proved less than accurate, and the error between date and solar events such as the equinoxes, necessitated a new calendar.  The root of the Julian Calendar error is this: it presumed that the year was 365.25 days long, meaning that a leap year every four years would account for the decimal places and keep the calendar year in sync with the actual solar year. As it happens, the year is more precisely 365.2422 days long, meaning that the seasons would slowly drift away from their calendar dates with the Julian Calendar -- for instance, by 1582, the Vernal Equinox was occurring on 11 March, rather than 21 March as is traditionally assumed. So, the new Gregorian Calendar restored the Equinox to its traditional date by dropping 10 days that October of 1582. It would try to remain accurate by modifying the reckoning of leap years: it would have a leap year every year divisible by 4, except those divisible by 100 (most years such as 1700AD are not leap years), but if divisible by 400, remaining a leap year (so 1600AD was a leap year). This is still a hair off, and some have suggested that we waive the leap year in 4000AD to fix the problem.

At this point, the leap day, when added, is 29 February.  Formerly, however, the extra day was not inserted in that last place of the month of February, but on the "sixth day before the Kalends of March."  The Roman manner of inserting a leap day was this -- simply double that sixth day before the Kalends of March.  You would have the sixth day twice in a row -- hence the term Bissextile, giving you ante diem bis sextum Kalendas Martias; the second sixth day before the Kalends of March.  Of course, the Romans reckoned their dates by counting down to the Kalends (First of the Month), Nones (5th or 7th of the Month), and Ides (13th or 15th of the Month).  The countdown was inclusive, so the third day before the Kalends of January, would be 30 December, by our sequential method.  This site has a wonderful chart showing the equivalent dates between our sequential reckoning and the Roman method: Roman Calendar: Conversion to our Calendar

The bissextile day, or leap day, then, was, considered from this perspective, that sixth day before the first of March, inclusive, or as we call it in normal years, 24 February.  When that day was "doubled" you had two legal "sixth days." Sequentially, however, that meant that the 25 day of the month was now the actual sixth day before the Kalends of March, and the 29th of February the day before the Kalends.

All of this has significance for the traditional Catholic feasts that fall on 24 February or later in this month.  Since, in leap years, the 24th was "doubled," in order for a feast day like that of St. Matthias the Apostle to remain on "the sixth day before the Kalends of March" it would migrate to 25 February that year.  The same would go for the other feasts at the end of the month -- traditionally their place was reckoned based on their number of days from the Kalends.  So, St. Gabriel of Our Lady of Sorrows typically has his traditional feast on 27 February, which is the third day before the Kalends of March, but in order to be on the third day before the Kalends of March in a leap year, it must shift to 28 February.

With the reform of the calendar in 1970, all feasts were reckoned by the sequential numbering, and the issue disappeared, much like the Roman technique of counting down to a date rather than sequentially counting up.

The great Fr. Z. has posted on this very subject, noting pertinent details that I did not go into: Fr. Z: Felix Bissextilis!

Tempus fugit!

Live well!